them, did not agree with the group at the Brussels Convention and rejected it summarily.

After the Brussels Convention was adopted, it then came back to the United States. A proposal was then made by the General Counsel for the Maritime Administration in what he called the interest of worldwide uniformity, of which I will have something more to say in a few moments, that America should adopt this same provision which was adopted at the Brussels Convention the same provisions. It was referred to quite a substantial committee in the Maritime Law Association which studied it, and studied it not just for a week or a month or a couple of months but studied it comprehensively over a substantial period of time.

The committee wanted to see the original notes of the Brussels Convention. This is how carefully they did it.

The committee met very frequently and even appointed a subcommittee to study all of the intimate details of the convention, looking at it from the standpoint of all the interests of the American community.

As a matter of fact, the committee, I think, probably for the first time, represented not only the shipowners-the Maritime Law Association consists primarily, I would say, of shipowners. The biggest, the greatest majority of the members of the Maritime Law Association consists of shipowners and their representatives, but you also have cargo people and you also have some personal injury people involved,

too.

The association-and it is to the credit of the Maritime Law Association that they did it this way-elected a committee which included a representative from the personal injury group, including for passengers and all other seamen and so on and longshoremen, and a representative of the cargo interests and also a representative of the hull underwriters, and so on. There were about 12 men on the committee.

This committee made, as I say, most comprehensive study which extended over, I would say, close to a year, perhaps a little bit more, and then came up with a report which I would think would be very helpful to this committee.

With your permission I would like to offer it so it would be printed in the record.

Senator BARTLETT. How long is it, Mr. Freedman?

Mr. FREEDMAN. It is 42-it is not too long, sir, not much longer than some of the papers that have been delivered here.

Senator BARTLETT. Let me see it.

Mr. FREEDMAN. You will notice that report is really four reports. Senator BARTLETT. This will be included in the record.

Mr. FREEDMAN. Thank you.

(The document referred to follows:)

DOCUMENT No. 418
July, 1958

THE MARITIME LAW ASSOCIATION
OF THE UNITED STATES

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER
PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE LIMITATION
OF LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS

Your Committee, after extensive study of the proposed Brussels Convention, concludes that as a whole it is not acceptable to or in the best interests of American shipowners, passengers, maritime labor or shippers. Accordingly, we are unable to recommend that the United States adhere to the proposed Convention, although certain provisions are or may be beneficial to various branches of the shipping industry.

Changed conditions may make it reasonable to revise the Sirovich amendment providing, among other things, for increase of the sum provided for injury and death claimants. If legislation to that end is considered, we think it should further prevent direct action against the hull or P & I underwriters as in the Cushing case, which could defeat limitation by indirection.

Your Committee has considered the following documents and submits them as appendices:

(1) A comparative analysis of present United States law, English law and the Convention proposals;

(2) A statement on the part of one member of the Committee expressing opposition to the Convention;

(3) A statement representing the views of those representing personal injury claimants and death claimants, and

(4) A dissenting opinion put forward by a member of the Committee (this is in the form of a speech made at a symposium on April 17, 1958).

Your Committee recommends that it be continued with power to act on behalf of the Association in connection with any new propositions or proposed legislation.

May 2, 1958.

Respectfully,

STANLEY R. Wright,
Chairman.

APPENDIX 1

COMPARISON OF U. S. LAW, ENGLISH LAW, AND PROVISIONS OF BRUSSELS 1957
CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO LIMITATION OF THE LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS

U. S. Law

All claims arising in course of the voyage even though more than one occasion of liability.

Value of the ship at the end of the
voyage plus gross freight and passage
money earned on voyage.

With respect to "seagoing vessels"
only, share of personal injury and death
claims must be increased up to $60 per
gross ton without deduction of engine
space, if required for full payment.

NOTE: The U. S. system is based
on the conception that a shipowner send-
ing his ship on a voyage, considered to
be a venture of unusual hazard, having
performed his personal duties in provid-
ing a well found ship, should not be
required to risk more than his investment
in the venture. This system stems from
prior European systems permitting aban-
donment some of which still exist at
least in modified form. These systems
have at least a rational foundation.

English Law

CLAIMS INCLUDED

Claims arising on each distinct oc-
casion.

AMOUNT OF LIMITATION

In case of loss of life or personal
injury, either alone or with property
damage, £15 ($42) per registered ton
plus engine space. In respect of prop-
erty claims, whether also personal claims
or not, £8 ($22.40) per ton. Loss of
life and personal injury claims paid
primarily out of £7 and share in £8
after exhausting £7.

NOTE: The English system of limita-
tion is unrelated to the earlier continental
systems of abandonment. See Marsden
on Collisions, 10th Ed., p. 172 et seq.
Prior to 1862, the system was based on
sound value plus freight, with a minimum
of £15 for loss of life and personal
injury. By the Act of 1862 the present
limits were established as a rough
average value of all ships, to save the
difficulty of individual valuations. With
the passage of time all relationship to
value has disappeared and the figures
have become arbitrary and ridiculously
low. They were never based on any
theory other than the abridgement of the
"natural right of justice *** for
political reasons". Dr. Lushington in
The Amalia (Brown & Lush. 151).

NOTE:

Like the present English
figures the Convention figures have no
relation to value, are purely arbitrary,
and justified only by "political" con-
siderations. They would place a great
hardship on the owners of low value
ships and discriminate unreasonably in
favor of the owners of high value ships.
Being arbitrary, with the passage of
time they would require reconsideration
as do the present English figures, and
for that matter the Sirovich floor figure.